Turn by turn directions to an address

Tried using Conect? I've plotted quite long routes in Connect, and used routes from it up to 56 miles with no issue.

Theres also any routing site that can link to Express - Komoot, Plotaroute, RidewithGPS, etc etc

Ɛpsilon said:

Considering the size of the watch, I'd suspect it lacks the processing power and as a result is not included. I cant imagine the ability to route to an adress is needed by many Fenix owners

I highly doubt that. Why would that be the case. The watch can calculate relatively complex routes without too many issues. If I add an address via a location to the watch, I can navigate to it no problem.

Looking up an address would never take up more processing power than calculating the actual route. It just needs a database. Part of that database is actually already there, since you can search for POI. Yes, adding addresses would increase the database size significantly (so storage is a valid point, but as pointed out above, it works on a device with half the storage space), but processing power for address lookup shouldn't be significantly higher, since you're specifying filters. e.g. on the Edge you first enter a country, then a city, etc. Hard to believe that processing power should be the limitation here.

Ɛpsilon said:

There are CIQ apps that can receive a point from google maps for navigation

I am aware and I've pointed out sendpoints above. Point is, it really should not be necessary. This should be a feature of any modern watch and yes, even one designed for outdoor sports. For Android apps at least it is possible for apps to register to be able to handle a geo format. If you have that, you can just share a location with another app (e.g. a messenger) and it'll be able to use that properly. Garmin could use that so that you can share a location with Connect and it then adds that location on the Fenix, so you can use it for navigation. While I of course would prefer to be able to use the watch directly, to me that would be valid way to use the Fenix for navigation and I really don't see a reason that speaks against it.

The ability to navihate to a point from Apple Maps is now live, so I assume Google maps wont be far behind.

I mentioned processing power as an address database would significantly increase the size of the database of points to search to, and that takes processing power and memory to work with. Its not the storage space that would be a limiting factor there - but processing speed and ram memory - so I guess Garmin decently not to implement it as its already a bit slow making routes on the watch once you get above about 10K

You say "Looking up an address would never take up more processing power than calculating the actual route. It just needs a database. Part of that database is actually already there, since you can search for POI."

But i'd counter that adding addresses would SERIOUSLY increase the size of the database. The POI searchable database on the watch is really just shops, and other things. Adding house addresses would probably increase that by at least a factor of 10

The processors in the watches will be optimised for low power usage, to give good battery life. It makes sense therefore to offload something as processor intensive as routing to addresses to an app on the phone, squrt the route to the watch and let it take over from there.

For all Explore's shortcomings, one thing I do like is its ability to squirt a route to the watch during an activity and start navigation without ending the activity

https://support.garmin.com/en-CA/?faq=SVV3VeaxSL7nbaih1OOpG6&productID=731139&searchQuery=apple%20maps&tab=topics

Live for Apple Maps. Hopefully Google maps soon

Hi - the City Nav file size is only 3.7GB, which is surprising it contains addresses as well as it works on my 67, but not my watch.  So the question is - is the data the same that both devices have and if so, why is the feature not enabled on the watch?

Its probably not enabled because the watch will have a much slower processor, and less ram memory, then a GPS handheld and that search would be very slow. I'd ask Garmin to confirm, but thats my understanding in that the watch is a much less processor powerful device than the larger ones. 

The watch may not also have the software to search the addresses - as I said, its not something really needed for sports watches so in order to optimise the device for its intended uses I'd suspect certain features that would be slow wouldnt be activated

The address data is probably compressed, so it would need to be uncompressed in memory to search. Thats where the speed would probably suffer.

Thats why I'd suggest using the 67 for address search - basically use the best device for the job.

A quick search says

"

1439062 said:

the City Nav file size is only 3.7GB,

Ɛpsilon said:

The processors in the watches will be optimised for low power usage, to give good battery life.

Ɛpsilon said:

points to search to, and that takes processing power

Ɛpsilon said:

Its not the storage space that would be a limiting factor there - but processing speed and ram memory